Talk:Yonaguni language

ん
See these several Yonaguni lemmata: んに (nni, "boat"), んだ (nda, "you"), んむ (nmu, "cloud"). ん seems to function like something of a syllabic nasal at times. This should be said somewhere, perhaps in the phonotactics section? Jodi1729 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Phonology
I will add consonant and vowel tables based on the phonology presented in the Handbook of Ryukyuan Languages. I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering whether there is a standard among linguistics articles to include only the phonemes or allophones as well.

— Lrschneider (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a wikiproject for linguistics which may have the answer. If you can't find it in the resources you can ask on the talk page. Thanks for your additions to the article! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"jameru", "damin", and "yameru"
You say the Yonaguni word "damin" is cognate with archaic Japanese word "jameru" meaning "hurt", "ache". Are you referring to the Japanese word "yameru" spelled, 痛める or 病める which has the archaic meaning of "hurt" and "ache"? I can see how a /d/ sound would develope from a /j/ sound, but was the archaic Japanese pronounciation of /j/ changed to a /y/ sound? 馬太阿房 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)d)|talk]]) 21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 01:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's just an IPA problem. Japanese y, w ~ Yonaguni d, b. I once read a claim that d, b is original, in an attempt to link Japanese to Altaic, but AFAIK the consensus is that it's Yonaguni that's innovative. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Phonology citation
@Austronesier This was not a cosmetic edit. The content of the edit in question is:


 * 1) adding a citation to content that was previously uncited
 * 2) making the content match the content given in the citation

In half-reversing the edit, the phonemes displayed now differ from the phonemes given in the citation it claims they come from. May I fix that without you regarding it as edit warring? Eievie (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, because you misrepresented the source that you used to cite the consonant chart. /c/ is not a palatal stop according to the source. It is a glottalized alveolar affricate /tsˀ/, and I had re-rendered the chart to match the source that you provided. The chart that existed before, actually already did match the source, (except, it did not display the lenis stops as glottalized), and it was good because it also displayed all the allophones to the consonant sounds as well. Other than that, it would be a cosmetic edit, so you're better off just leaving it the way it is. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just double-checked, and that's half true. The citation contains a note I'd overlooked ("The symbol c(c) represents a voiceless dental affricate [tsˀ]").
 * But the other half is that the citation lists [tsˀ] as a phoneme, rather than an allophone like the current page does. Other miscellaneous issues with insisting on the table differing include:
 * It's structed as to suggest the lenis/fortis/voiced distinction is a feature of labial sounds, alveolar sounds, and velar sounds, when its not, it's a feature of plosives. That's not merely formatting, it's being misleading about which sets are a contrasted.
 * The alveolar set is ought to be listed as dental
 * There are allophones listed with no mention of what they're allophones of. I paired them all up here, except for . The source text's sentence on  is unclear, if you could figure that one out that'd be productive.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"

! colspan="2" | ! Labial ! Dental ! Palatal ! Velar ! Glottal ! rowspan="3" | Plosive ! lenis ! fortis ! voiced ! colspan="2" | Nasal ! colspan="2" | Fricative ! colspan="2" | Flap ! colspan="2" | Approximant
 * }
 * Eievie (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * }
 * Eievie (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * }
 * Eievie (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Eievie (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Eievie (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, yes that is a feature of mainly plosives here. It's not misleading because it does list all the plosives as such. It's just like if there were only labialized plosive consonants. Not every sound is labialized, but it still has to display which ones are. Second, sometimes, sources may use "alveolar" and "dental" interchangeably, and in this case the source does transcribe them as alveolar [t͡sˀ], and not dental [t̪͡s̪ˀ]. And third, as for info regarding the allophones, that can always be added, and I might as well do that to avoid confusion. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not "mainly", it's only. The source material is very explicit about that. Why put it 3 places when it can be just 1 and be more clear and succinct? What reason do you have for pushing for the other format, other than it was there first and you don't like me changing things? Eievie (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because why change it if that's not the main issue? That's the format that was designed for the chart. You just simply think it's really necessary to *cosmetically edit* every chart you see, that has it's own format and design. And I'm sure me if I were a viewer let alone a user, I could still look at it at first glance and still understand what it's displaying. There should not be any "rules" to just what a chart "should" look like. I understand what it says, and so do viewers who are familiar with the IPA. No need to be so pedantic. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We've gone over this before. I am allowed to edit details you personally find unimportant. I think this is better and clear. The people behind the citation also thought so. That's reason enough.
 * Policies and guidelines: Minor edits to improve formatting... and clarity may be made at any time.
 * "No need to be so pedantic" is a hypocritical thing to say when you yourself made edits to combining new citations with old formatting just for the sake of preserving old formatting which you don't even claim was better or clearer.
 * If you have an argument that my change made things worse, you could dispute it. But if you want to claim that you are allowed to intercept people on the grounds of merely being superfluous, please first find the policy that backs up that notion. Eievie (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)